Blog

Welcome to Coming In Stats Up. Regardless of how you’ve found your way here, thank you for stopping by. My hope in creating this blog is to bring college soccer into the analytics discussion. I will surely wander from that area from time to time and take a look at the broader scope of performance analysis, but (I think) most articles will stem from my experience in the college game. I also hope to add a coach’s perspective to my analysis, having spent six seasons as a college assistant at various levels.

The analytics movement is working its way into college soccer – this level of the game presents a new and different landscape to investigate. It is a different game in many ways (for better or worse), and much has been made of its place in the American soccer development system. Adding insight from this landscape to the overall analytics discourse is my main goal, and any feedback or further discussion is more than welcome.

I look forward to diving into this. Thanks again for your interest – let’s get to it.

In the early stages of my new role in analytics, one piece that grabbed my attention was this work by Alex Olshansky on passing styles. The average number of passes a team makes per possession can give you an idea of the style of the game – fewer passes in each possession can signify a more direct style, or a more helter-skelter type of game with lots of turnovers. Teams with a higher number of passes per possession try to get the ball down and knock it around a bit more.

Alex updated his chart with an MLS-only version a few months into the 2015 season. The addition of a “Possessions per Game” column led me to think about what this may look like in college soccer. A popular perception of the college game is that it relies more on speed and athleticism, and less on skill. What would a similar chart from college soccer say about this notion?

Before looking at the college numbers, it may be helpful to represent Alex’s original chart in another type of visualization. Unfortunately, I have not seen an updated version of the data, but this still works for the purposes of this comparison:

​Notice the blue text in the four quadrants. Teams in the bottom right corner play a more possession-based, build up style of play – more passes each time they have the ball, so there are naturally fewer possessions. Teams in the top left corner turn the ball over a bit more, after fewer passes. It would be difficult to be in the other two extremes – more possessions of more passes would require VERY quick passes and a suffocating press to win the ball back. Few possessions of few passes likely means you are not a high quality squad, or you are playing against Pep Guardiola’s Barcelona every week and seeing none of the ball.

​Based on the points per game at this stage of the season, it appears that passing style had little influence on a team’s place in the table. Taking a look at the teams who later made the playoffs, the same idea holds. The averages for this group do not differ greatly from the league averages… and the teams are widely scattered:

​So what would this chart look like for college soccer? Data here is a bit more difficult to come by, but I do have access to Prozone analysis from the past two seasons for the Atlantic Coast Conference. In 2014, the ACC finished as the #2 conference in the NCAA RPI. In 2015, it was #1 – so we are looking at a very high level of college soccer. One note – this is obviously a more limited dataset, as it consists of 48 games each season between ACC teams (12 teams, 8 ACC games each); some patterns certainly emerge however:

​The biggest comparison that jumps out from these charts – there is no overlap between the college and MLS numbers. The ACC charts are on a completely different part of each axis. This means the following:

No team in the ACC played as many passes per possession as the lowest MLS team. Furthermore, teams had at least 50 more possessions per game in ACC games than in MLS games. This suggests that the college game is a much different style than MLS.

Similarly to MLS though, passing style seems to have no major impact on success in the college game – for both conference points per game and final results for the season. In 2015, for example, Wake Forest passed the ball a lot, and spent a large portion of the season as the #1 team in the country. Clemson were a bit closer to the conference average, and rode that balance to the College Cup. Syracuse were at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Wake Forest, playing a much more hectic style – and were right there in the College Cup with Clemson.

All of this suggests that at a team level, these passing style numbers indicate just that – style, more than substance. Perhaps you can’t predict how well a team may perform based on their passes per possession, but you can learn a great deal about how they will play. For those of us whose job entails a great deal of opposition scouting, this metric can help us determine whether to prepare for tiki-taka, counterattacking football, or mortar shells being launched down the field.

But why is there such a difference in the passing numbers between college and MLS?

A college soccer game differs from an MLS game in a few easy to pick out ways – the clock counts down from 45:00 and can be stopped by the referee, players who leave the match in either half can return in the second half, and the season runs only from August to December, at its very longest. Finally, logic tells us that the players at the professional level likely exhibit better quality than their college counterparts.

To further investigate how these factors play into the drop off from MLS to the ACC, I plotted the average number of passes attempted by a team in each 15 minute period of a match. Data used for this chart came from the same ACC dataset, plus WhoScored.com’s detailed MLS stats. The results look like this:

A match in either league follows roughly the same storyline – teams fly out of the gates with a high number of passes in the first 15 minutes of the match. As the initial adrenaline wears off, things slow down a bit before picking back up towards halftime. The second half starts off more slowly, dropping to the lowest number of passes between the 60th and 75th minutes, only to spike again as the teams scramble to finish off the match.

The college line largely mirrors that of MLS, particularly in the first half, with the ACC teams keeping within 4-7 passes of the MLS teams. This can presumably be explained by the increase in quality of player from college to professional. But what happens to the college players at halftime?

In the first 15 minutes of the second half, the gap between MLS teams and ACC teams widens to 16 passes, and never really recovers. Something in the game has clearly changed at this point. Looking at the box score or play-by-play of a college soccer game, things often get a bit chaotic in the second half in terms of personnel. NCAA substitution rules allow players who leave in the first half to return after halftime, and players who leave in the second half to re-enter once more. Perhaps the introduction of several substitutes, and subsequent re-introduction of starters, actually serves to hurt the speed and quality of play?

Research by Conte et al. found that men’s Division I soccer games featured substitutions at a rate 375 percent greater than that of professional leagues – the standard three permitted substitutions per game. Furthermore, 60 percent of these substitutions were re-entries - an action not permitted in professional soccer – and 90 percent of substitutions occurred after the 30th minute.

A frequently seen substitution pattern in college games involves midfielders and forwards coming out late in the first half, then returning either at halftime or 10-15 minutes into the second half. This is the same time period in which the drastic drop off in passing numbers occurs. Are the substitutes not quite as adept at passing as the starters? This is a possibility – after all, the starting eleven are starters for a reason. Are players re-entering the game actually a bit removed from the flow of the game once they return? Whereas the majority of players in a professional game remain on the field for the full 90, thus remaining entrenched in the match, perhaps college players lose a bit of their grip on the game when they leave and come back.

Conte et al. present another potential influence of substitutions. The huge increase in subs is to be expected not only due to the allowance of such moves by the rules, but based on the packed schedule of NCAA soccer. Teams play upwards of 20 to 25 games in a short time span, with most weeks featuring two games. For a player to play 90 minutes midweek, plus 90 more minutes on the weekend – sometimes for several weeks in a row – is a very grueling task. It is likely that coaches turn to substitutes more frequently than they may prefer simply to keep their top players available for the next match. Additionally, teams often spend the days between these games recovering and regenerating, rather than working on the passing that we see them struggle with in the second half.

All of this raises a potential new argument for one of the hot topics in college soccer at the moment – the extension of the NCAA season to last the full academic year. Many supporters of the change tout the reduced time demands on athletes on a weekly basis, as well as a reduced risk of injury with less frequent games. Could another result of spacing out the season actually be higher quality soccer?

Players able to focus all of their energy on one game each week, rather than two, would likely perform at higher levels. Plus, if teams become less reliant on substitutions – whether the rule changes to eliminate re-entry, or coaches no longer feel the need to rest their top players – then presumably the passing numbers we discussed may improve. Though they may never reach the same level as MLS, we could feasibly reduce or eliminate the big drop off seen after halftime of college matches.

College soccer’s position in the American development system has come under scrutiny for a perceived lack of quality – many feel that by the age of 18-22 players should either be in a professional environment already, or they are not going to be good enough. But data such as these passing style statistics suggest that perhaps we are doing the college players a bit of an injustice. Over the first half of games, they DO have a level of quality approaching that of their MLS counterparts. Are we actually derailing their progress somewhere around halftime through substitutions and re-entries? Could we reduce this interference with their play (and potentially their development) by changing the NCAA schedule? Further investigation into this possibility may help college soccer improve its level of play, the time demands on its athletes, and its place in the development of American players.

Thanks again for checking out my new blog. If you enjoyed this article, there will be more like it to follow. Pass it along and help continue to open up the discussion, and please let me know what you think! I'd love to hear from you via the comments section below, or on Twitter at @ajbarnold.

With all due respect, NCAA soccer is SUPPOSED TO BE for athletic students (The fact that the standardized term is student athlete, "student" modifies the noun "athlete" is a different problem). School should come first. A longer season may benefit MLS and other professional leagues, but does not benefit the vast majority of players who will not become professional athletes and need the time to study.

Limiting the season to one semester means that players can lighten their load in season and take their tougher courses (and perhaps an extra class or two) in their off season semester.

I agree with you on the substitutions. I think that the NCAA SHOULD play with limited substitutions (and no re-entry).

Thanks Craig. You share these viewpoints with many people in this discussion on changing the season length. Many within the game, however - including student-athletes - feel that extending the season would actually help the players from an academic standpoint. Playing two games a week requires travel and missed classes, and players are more tired, beat up, injured, etc. than they would be if there were only one game each week. The proposed benefits of the new schedule would be to reduce this stress by extending the length of the season without greatly increasing the number of games. The thought is that student-athletes would actually end up with more time to focus on academics and personal life than they currently have.

Reply

Troy Schauder

3/16/2016 07:57:03 am

one aspect not taken into account while associating amount of passes and amount of possessions with success within the league is quality of possession. Many teams may attempt "quality soccer" having many passes and much possession however there lack of success may come down to these passes and possessions largely not being in the attacking half. Comparing teams of similar passes per possession and possessions in Europe to their success as a team may differ, along with stats showing time spent in which third of the field. Just one small aspect I saw that could be a legitement factor, as many ncaa teams and mls teams may lack the skill to keep the same amount of possession and number of passes in areas of the field that matter, nonetheless a fantastic article.

Thanks Troy - I think what you're suggesting probably has some merit, in terms of Europe being at a higher level. The first article I linked by Alex Olshansky shows that - the top EPL teams in passes per possession were one full pass higher than the top MLS teams. MLS teams are higher than college, and so on.

These numbers don't appear to be great indicators, though, of a team's success in their league. In that table, Everton were 4th in passes per possession, but finished 11th in the league table. The MLS and ACC numbers are also scattered in terms of teams' performance. Where it can be very useful is in understanding *how* a team plays - for example, Tottenham and Leicester's passing and possession numbers aren't great this season, but they are each playing a very effective style.

Thanks again! I'm hoping to follow up this article eventually with some additional layers, possibly related to the ideas you brought up.

Reply

Hal Clarke

3/17/2016 10:29:54 am

This is a great and very interesting analysis/article. The more technical game seemingly doesn't guarantee more success...which is what I've observed over the years. But from the perspective of the college athlete, MORE subbing would be preferred re playing time and development. The season is in essence a year-long enterprise already in terms of training, and for a half or quarter scholarship, what would be the point of busting derriere all year if opportunities for getting off the bench were even rarer than at present? As for spreading out games over the full academic year, what happens to the teams above the Mason-Dixon Line where, as the song goes... the weather outside is often frightful? Not every school has an appropriate indoor facility. But I totally agree that a one game per week schedule would be better in many ways. The PAC-12's Friday-Sunday league schedules for example are brutal on the players and at least hypothetically on the quality of the Sunday games, which are typically scheduled relatively early so that the visitors can make the trip home at a decent hour. How about unlimited subbing for two-game weekends?

Thanks Hal! The proposed schedule shift would include a winter break, similar to that used in the Bundesliga, only longer.

Reply

Bob

3/17/2016 10:37:28 am

While I find these stats interesting, I believe that many collegiate players lack fundamental tactical awareness thereby facilitating bad decision making. For example, dribbling vs. passing or trying to force passes into windows of space that have low probability of execution / completion. Moreover, I feel positional awareness on the field (by team members)is important (as pointed out in your analysis) but I believe it goes even further. If you divided the field into thirds, tactically one should play 1 -3 touch ind the defensive third, 1 - 5 touch in the midfield third and unlimited touch in the offensive third. Of course this logic is based on the premise that defense first wins games and with the objective being less turnovers in the defensive third as these can result in deadly counterattacks. For example, if your dribbling in the defensive third and get fouled... which is not called and the ball turns over resulting in a goal, is the ref the only one to blame? Yet we see this at all levels of soccer all the time. I believe college soccer would improve if tactical awareness was more of a priority. However, I believe that good programs (like ACC teams) rely on "blue chip players" who rely on skill & athleticism to compensate for bad tactical decisions. However, that prowess declines as the game wears on and they become tired and less focused (which is enhanced by halftime break) and the resulting drop in the quality of play.

Thanks for sharing your analysis!

Reply

Matt

3/18/2016 02:13:17 pm

Thank you for a thoughtful and considered analysis. You raise a number of good points about the link between passing numbers and substitutions.

There is something that both you and Conte et al. allude to but that does not appear in the ACC vs. MLS analysis or data which may skew the results. Have you considered the effect of the clock in the passing numbers? More specifically, the college clock does not stop for substitutions (except for some situations in the last 5 minutes of a game) and there is no stoppage time in either half. Conte et al. suggest there are an average of 11 substitutions per team in each college game and most occur in the last 60 minutes of a match. Is there any link between the amount of time the ball is in play and the passing statistics? If the clock continues to run during college games during substitutions, what if each of the 15 minute segments of the second half is actually 12 or 13 minutes that the ball is in play. How might that effect the comparisons?

How do the additional minutes of stoppage time in the professional game effect the comparison of the last 15 minute segment? How many minutes is the game being played in the final segment of a pro match as compared to the final segment of the college match?

What if quality of the players is not entirely to blame for any remaining differences? Many second half substitutions in college soccer allows players to fatigue less during the course of a match and to pace themselves less than professionals might. What role might additional defensive pressure have in reducing passing statistics? In other words, does additional high pressure by college players result in fewer opportunities for long passing sequences, including fewer easy passes in the defensive half of the field during a build up?

Thanks Matt! The question you raise about the clock is a really interesting one to me. Some of the difference IS accounted for... Prozone treats the game like a professional one - its clock never stops, so the "45+" category is kind of like stoppage time, counting the second when the college clock DID stop. However, this likely doesn't completely cover the difference in time played between college and pro. I'd be really interested to look at that.

I'm planning a follow up to this, possibly including length of pass. My guess is your point about defensive pressure may mean that players just start dumping long balls in the second half - which take more time and fewer attempted passes than short ball movements do.

Reply

Paul

5/14/2017 05:55:25 am

Thank you for the writing!

I appreciate and have a 15yr old daughter who wants to play for a possession style coach/ team in Div I,II or III college. The article gives me food for thought as I try to figure out what schools on her interest list play a possession style game.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

A.J. Barnold

College soccer coach turned performance analyst. I watch people kick stuff for a living, and try to help them kick stuff better.